Merged: Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

From AE 911

Earlier this year, AE911Truth partnered with Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, an engineering professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), to undertake a study, using Finite Element Modeling, of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. Dr. Hulsey is the chair of UAF’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department and brings decades of experience in failure analysis and modeling of structures.

In May, Dr. Hulsey and his team of Ph.D. research assistants began a two-year process of virtually reconstructing WTC 7 — using the software programs SAP 2000 and Abaqus — and evaluating the range of possible causes of WTC 7’s collapse. By working in two separate programs, Dr. Hulsey and his team are able to crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7.

With the models now partly developed, Dr. Hulsey and his team have begun to analyze how the building responds to various conditions. Eventually they will examine the fire-based scenario put forward by NIST, which involves the thermal expansion of long-span beams near WTC 7’s column 79.

Based on his analysis, Dr. Hulsey will evaluate the probability of each hypothetical scenario being the cause of the collapse — and rule out scenarios that could not have resulted in collapse. Once the study is completed, Dr. Hulsey will submit his findings to major peer-reviewed engineering journals.

Transparency and Public Participation
Unlike NIST, which has refused to release all of its modeling data based on the untenable excuse that doing so “might jeopardize public safety,” UAF and AE911Truth will make this study completely open and transparent.

Soon, we will begin posting the process on the website WTC7Evaluation.org, where members of the architecture and engineering communities, as well as the general public, can follow and scrutinize the research as it is being conducted.

Today, we’re giving you a sneak peek by inviting you to be the first to watch the official WTC 7 Evaluation Introduction Video. This video will be featured at the top of the forthcoming website WTC7Evaluation.org to introduce visitors to Dr. Hulsey and the goals of the UAF study.

By making the study open and transparent throughout the entire process, we expect it to attract widespread attention from the engineering community and the broader public, while also enabling interested observers to provide input and feedback. To that end, we enthusiastically invite you to register to become a participant in the study. Dr. Hulsey and the review committee vetting his research greatly welcome your help.

This Is a Turning Point
We at AE911Truth believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community and by the general public.
Not only will the UAF study add credible, cutting-edge research to the existing body of evidence and analysis regarding the destruction of WTC 7, it will also generate an unprecedented level of awareness and willingness to look seriously at how this building was destroyed.

I'm doubtful that any FEA analysis, or any structural engineer for that matter, could make a definitive statement that collapse from fire is IMPOSSIBLE.

I'm also doubtful that any FEA analysis could make the defintive statement that NIST is wrong. I think at best the result of this test will conclude that, like NIST's conclusions, there is a degree of probability of the likelihood of the event. Again, it seems like an exercise to determine which bolt failed first. That being said, NIST is not sacrosanct, never to be challenged. If this analysis shows a more likely event of initiation happened, then it certainly has it uses.

But it can never ever be the result AE911T hopes for, if it can be kept in perspective. Proving NIST wrong does not prove CD. There still isn't and never has been any evidence of CD. An FEA analysis of a CD collapse is utterly useless since this certainly is no mystery; explosives WILL bring down a building. As has been pointed out before, you could have a ton of thermite sitting in Larry Silverstein's office signed for by Dick Cheney himself, and that still doesn't prove CD!

However, as one who has used the argument that AE911T has never themselves performed any sort of scientific analysis of the collapses, despite their stated mandate and fund raising for just such a thing, I welcome seeing that they are finally doing something.

__________________Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump

(Quoting AE911)
By working in two separate programs, Dr. Hulsey and his team are able to crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7.

Hogwash - reminiscent of the nonsense that Gage, /Szamboti et all put out.
The best they can do by that method is "crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring [that they AGREE WITH EACH OTHER]." Comparison of two methods cannot "[ensure] that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7".

....and if the good Doctor has made that statement he has already destroyed any credibility he may have possessed.

Let's hope that we are not seeing more AE911 hyperbole and lies. BUT any professional who agrees to work with AE911 would need a clearly documented and published statement of the conditions of engagement - and I don't see AE911 ever agreeing to an honest and transparent professional process.

It would be a massive turn around if AE911 was to go honest.

(And would leave the co-author of "Missing Jolt" floundering as he backed down from that set of false claims. )

Quote:

This Is a Turning Point
We at AE911Truth believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community << It was a steel framed building engulfed in unfought fires and with disabled fire fighting sytems. It collapsed. I doubt they can change that. and by the general public << Currently the "general public" is EITHER "Yes it was another of those buildings which collapsed." OR "I hadn't realised that there was another "big one".
Not only will the UAF study add credible, cutting-edge research to the existing body of evidence and analysis regarding the destruction of WTC 7, << What new techniques are there which can add anything to what is already known? it will also generate an unprecedented level of awareness and willingness to look seriously at how this building was destroyed. << Who are the target people who may be persuaded to become aware AND are capable of "looking seriously" - the gullible sector of demography are not capable of "looking seriously" and any competent professionals who are attracted to the topic by this activity will not add anything to the support. They will still comprise the same 99% of the population who have no interest in pursuit of this set of conspiracy theories and the << 1% that are gullible enough to be conned by Gage, Szamboti et all. Net change zero???

Hogwash - reminiscent of the nonsense that Gage, /Szamboti et all put out.
The best they can do by that method is "crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring [that they AGREE WITH EACH OTHER]." Comparison of two methods cannot "[ensure] that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7".

....and if the good Doctor has made that statement he has already destroyed any credibility he may have possessed.

Ditto that. If the programs are worth a damn, they should give similar results with the same inputs.

Call me crazy, but I would vary the inputs to the point where WTC 7 doesn't collapse, not the simulation programs! That can be done simply by making the fires in the lower NE corner progressively less severe. Then compare with visual evidence of the fires.

NIST's assumptions are actually quite conservative. They assume that the insulation of the floor beams, column 79, and the girder connecting column 79 to 44 did its job and kept them from directly failing. As a check, one could even vary the inputs to the point where they do fail directly. Dr. James Quintiere, who Truthers falsely claim as an ally, believes that engineers have greatly underestimated the fire load in modern offices.

This Is a Turning Point
We at AE911Truth believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community and by the general public.
Not only will the UAF study add credible, cutting-edge research to the existing body of evidence and analysis regarding the destruction of WTC 7, it will also generate an unprecedented level of awareness and willingness to look seriously at how this building was destroyed.

Hmmm, it's hard to have confidence in a study where the results are announced in advance.

Ditto that. If the programs are worth a damn, they should give similar results with the same inputs.

Yes!

Originally Posted by Redwood

Call me crazy, but I would vary the inputs to the point where WTC 7 doesn't collapse, not the simulation programs! That can be done simply by making the fires in the lower NE corner progressively less severe. Then compare with visual evidence of the fires...

OK "Crazy". More seriously I think the first step is to define what the - your - my - objective is. What are we trying to achieve?
1) Prove no CD? - we dont need to "prove" it - it is claimant burden of proof.

2) Determine what precisely was the collapse initiation sequence? Why do it and I doubt it can be achieved. NIST established a plausible argument - who would legitimately benefit from any alternate plausible explanation? There has to be a "line in the sand" defining how far a Government goes expending public funds to address problems from the manic fringe. (So how far is manic and how much can be achieved at what cost sets the decision policy framework.)

3) a few more - - but "Who wants it? Why? Who pays? and Cost/Benefit" are the determining issues. NOT truther or CT demands - and not "debunker" desires or wish lists. ...

Originally Posted by Redwood

NIST's assumptions are actually quite conservative. They assume that the insulation of the floor beams, column 79, and the girder connecting column 79 to 44 did its job and kept them from directly failing. As a check, one could even vary the inputs to the point where they do fail directly.

Understood - the "why do it?" and "for who's benefit?" questions still arise.

Originally Posted by Redwood

Dr. James Quintiere, who Truthers falsely claim as an ally, believes that engineers have greatly underestimated the fire load in modern offices.

It wouldn't be the first time engineers have made wrong assumptions. And stubbornly stuck with them as they dig ever deeper into a hole. Remember "alligators v swamp drainage".

Quintierre was not in agreement with the nature or/ protocol and so on of the NIST investigation. He seems agnostic on structural failures because he states he is not a structural engineer. NIST produced a model not an NTSB type of investigation.

Quintierre was not in agreement with the nature or/ protocol and so on of the NIST investigation. He seems agnostic on structural failures because he states he is not a structural engineer. NIST produced a model not an NTSB type of investigation.

And, I believe that Quintierre's major objection to the NIST report after it was published was its conclusion that the collapses would likely not have happened without the structural damage and insulation removal caused by the plane crashes. Quintierre believes that the fires alone could have brought down the buildings, which is about as far away from "truther" claims as you can get.

The best they can do by that method is "crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring [that they AGREE WITH EACH OTHER]." Comparison of two methods cannot "[ensure] that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7".

That was a red flag to me as well.

I note there is no reference to what they will make of it if this FEA produces results very close to that produced by NIST's, a decade ago.

I note there is no reference to what they will make of it if this FEA produces results very close to that produced by NIST's, a decade ago.

If that happens, publication will probably be indefinitely delayed for some very important but unstated reason.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

By working in two separate programs, Dr. Hulsey and his team are able to crosscheck the results of the models against one another, thereby ensuring that they are error-free, accurate representations of WTC 7.

This is the obvious bit of nonsense, that most regular posters of this sub-forum will spot immediately, as ozeco, Redwood and haydeehess did before me (I am slightly disappointed DGM didn't point it out ).
So it is very important for Trojan to clarify whether he slipped this in as his own error, or whether this is actually what Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey and/or AE911Truth are saying!

Originally Posted by Trojan

Earlier this year, AE911Truth partnered with Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, an engineering professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), to undertake a study, using Finite Element Modeling, of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. ... In May, Dr. Hulsey and his team of Ph.D. research assistants began a two-year process ... Dr. Hulsey and his team have begun to analyze ... they will examine ... Dr. Hulsey will evaluate ... Dr. Hulsey will submit his findings to major peer-reviewed engineering journals.

... UAF and AE911Truth will make this study completely open and transparent.

Soon, we will begin posting the process on the website WTC7Evaluation.org ... Today, we’re giving you a sneak peek by inviting you to be the first to watch the official WTC 7 Evaluation Introduction Video

"AE911Truth partnered with Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey" - it seems Hulsey and his staff at UAF do all the technical and research stuff, AE911Truth does the website.

May I inquire how this study and the media presentations are funded? Are any public funds spent on this? If yes, how much?
Or does AE911Truth pay Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey and his team?
If Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey does this "in his spare time", this would be equivalent to 100% public funding, as UAF is a public institution.

Originally Posted by Trojan

...
We at AE911Truth ...

Are you, Trojan, a member and representative of AE911Truth, or did you copy your text from elsewhere? if the latter, please link your source!

Originally Posted by Trojan

believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community and by the general public.

As has been pointed out already by others: It looks suspicious and discourages trust if you already know the outcome of the study, which apparently won't be finished before 2017!

This in my opinion is the major tripping point if they try to play fast and loose with the truth.

Naturally, I did comment on what do they consider to be a "major peer-reviewed engineering journal".

I am not so sure they couldn't get crap published in a truly presigeous engineering journal if they add enough complexity for peer-reviewers to be overwhelmed. There is no guarantee that peer-reviewers don't have undue faith in FEA.

I am not so sure they couldn't get crap published in a truly presigeous engineering journal if they add enough complexity for peer-reviewers to be overwhelmed. There is no guarantee that peer-reviewers don't have undue faith in FEA.

1) Peer review says little more than the paper is good enough to put into debate. We have peer review on too high a pedestal - creating a rod for our own backs when dealing with truthers who tend to treat peer review as the gold seal guarantee of accuracy.

2) The risk with FEA is real - it does so much of the "thinking" for those using it that they can use it without first "Engage the Brain" OR keeping brain in gear through the process.

1) Peer review says little more than the paper is good enough to put into debate. We have peer review on too high a pedestal - creating a rod for our own backs when dealing with truthers who tend to treat peer review as the gold seal guarantee of accuracy.

That's because we still can't help dealing with truthers as if they were all on some level both knowledgeable and honest. Peer review is a necessary condition for a piece of scientific work to be taken seriously; truthers tend rather to insist it's a sufficient condition. Some of them are too ignorant to understand the different; others, I am quite sure, are fully capable of understanding it, but wilfully obscure it.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

I am not so sure they couldn't get crap published in a truly presigeous engineering journal if they add enough complexity for peer-reviewers to be overwhelmed. There is no guarantee that peer-reviewers don't have undue faith in FEA.

1) Peer review says little more than the paper is good enough to put into debate. We have peer review on too high a pedestal - creating a rod for our own backs when dealing with truthers who tend to treat peer review as the gold seal guarantee of accuracy.

2) The risk with FEA is real - it does so much of the "thinking" for those using it that they can use it without first "Engage the Brain" OR keeping brain in gear through the process.

I agree but, I can't see how they could back door the CD conclusion past the peer review. Sure they could offer other scenarios outside of the NIST but, supporting CD (the AE) belief is another story.

__________________"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

I agree but, I can't see how they could back door the CD conclusion past the peer review. Sure they could offer other scenarios outside of the NIST but, supporting CD (the AE) belief is another story.

They won't even try, I suspect. They'll come up with some vague conclusion about how none of the scenarios modelled could have reproduced the observed collapse dynamics to some arbitrarily chosen level of accuracy, stress the need for further investigation, and hint that there is some other possibility that they're not talking about, keeping it general enough not to alert anyone who doesn't know who they are but leaving room for truthers to misrepresent the paper as conclusive proof of CD.

Cynical? Me?

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

AE911T probably had to do something. The goal of an FEA was put forth ten months ago as to be part of the 'work' they were to do in 2015.

Here we are half way through November and they have nothing to show! With this announcement they can call for more funds through to February or March.

I have personally called upon the supporters here to get AE911T to do an FEA so at least they have started on as little as they can do.

Seems its designed as "prove NIST wrong" on the least significant point, did the girder walk off due soley to heat expansion. Ok include the extra bits on the girder seat, will they also include the effects of the south side damage? or any other effect that would be less significant than heat but coukd possibly contribute to deformation or movement?

Big problem for AE911T in examing if a col 79 failure could progress to global collapse, is that if they did an FEA on that issue they would have to eat crow on so many claims they have asserted in the past such as free fall = CD, 80 columns severed at once, etc. So they concentrate on the girder walk off.

One question I do have. Has AE9/11 actually presented a "scenario" that could be entered into a FEA as input data?

They haven't AFAIK.

The ongoing base level problem is that they do not have any valid scenario. And - until the scenario is valid - there is nothing legitimate to put into the maths/calculations. Remember that FEA is simply a complicated maths engine which does calculations which would be prohibitive in human effort if done "by hand'. (Including "by hand plus slide riule"- my era and "By hand with calculators" - end of my era doing the engineering - overlapping into my first years of managing engineering.)

And the problem with ALL of Szamboti's claims (EXCEPT his share in the paper with Szuladszinski and Johns) is that his scenarios are wrong - his starting premises and assumptions selected to "force" the predetermined conclusion of CD.

All those discussions about "Tilt will prevent or cause axial impact" and the continuing nonsense of Missing Jolt. Both scenarios are false - never existed - never could exist. So all the maths and FEA CANNOT be valid - and both sides made the same error. And Szamboti knows that - probably knows it is correct - which is why he rarely engages with me and has not entered into debate with me in the last 4 or 5 years.

There is no point in even discussing FEA (or any other form of processing maths) IF the sceario is wrong. Step one of any problem silutin is "Define Your problem" - then apply the data and use the maths. (And - for the process pedants - heuristic processes "defining as you go" are also valid but let's keep it simple. )

Originally Posted by DGM

I don't believe they actually have. I wonder if this new AE site (Gage owns the domain) will outline this new data.

Whether or not they have new data - doubtful - but it is irrelevant while ever they persist with false scenarios.

We've had our hair on fire asking truthers to detail or even sketch their CD scenario... what was where and did what when and how and so on. I would shocked it they proposed, tested and "proved" anything.

It really doesn't matter Sander. If it is to be a professional level attempt to establish an alternate explanation it will have to rigorously expose and support the scenario, the starting point assumptions then the data then the maths processing.

Szamboti's "trick" with this sort of thing is to assume the starting scenario THEN spend months nit pick arguing the maths details. When the scenario is false. Look how he will simply not face reality that his starting scenario for "Missing Jolt" never was and never could be. Dozens of us have told him that. Many like me have presented rigorous explanations - he runs away.

(In the case of WTC7 Girder walk off the status was that his starting point was not proven. Same result in valid logic - his claim not made out. That one was too subtle for many members esp those who themselves see FEA as the only tool needed to solve the problem. You cannot solve a problem if you cannot correctly identify it. And arguing different results from FEA's when both have the wrong scenario is wasted effort.)

In fact ozeco, AE911T has claimed exactly that NIST had not begun their FEA with correct inputs.

While NIST did identify the problem correctly:

The collapse visibly began with rooftop structures falling into the building and a 'kink' in the north face.
Analysis showed best fit was a failure of col 79
The only visible driver for this is the fires on several floors. The most prominent is that on the 12th floor.
Analysis showed that fire coukd not fail col 79 directly.
Therefore col 79 must have had another factor in its failure. Loss of lateral support occurs when floors fail due to fire. Research indicated that girder 44 would be heated in the fires.
Analysis indicated that significant movement would occur and quite probably cause it to come away from its seat on col 79. The debris causes further floor failures. Col 79 , already heated, now has lost significant lateral support and buckles.

HOWEVER, the assumption that col79 failed first is quite solid.
It is patently obvious that an internal failure of one or two major columns led the collapse.
NIST did further analysis for a failure of col 79 without considering its cause. They did this for a pristine structure as well as one with south side impact damage. That analysis shows the collapse progressing globally.

What is AE911T proposing to do? Analyze girder 44, and not a dang thing other than that. Will they demonstrate a collapse by any means? Nope. Will they analyze the actual collapse to determine how the rooftop structures came to fall in and the kink develop? Nope. Will they analyze specific column failures to determine a match to reality? Nope.
Will they do any analysis designed to illustrate a probable collapse sequence? Nope.
Will they identify the real problem that requires a solution, obviously not.

This is supposed to be a game changer in how the collapse is viewed? This is supposed to lead to bolstering AE911T's claims of explosive demolitions? Yep, to understand their spin on it. In reality though, doesnt even come close.

Edited my post to include other column failure scenarios.
The 'first' issue is a problem with language. What failed first? How far back shall we go? A perimeter column in WTC1 that is severed by aircraft impact? That eventually led to the collapse of WTC7.
The failure that occurred to directly and subsequently cause rooftop structures to fall inward would appear to be a failure of col 79.

Since that can be determined fairly well, imho its the place to work back from.
Working back one notes the only known drivers of such column failure are perimeter impact damage and fire.
Impact may have produced some forces on the internal columns but not enough to directly cause column failure.
Fires may have damaged columns but not enough to directly cause a column failure.

If AE911T wants to contribute then they could look for another mechanism by which column 79 failed.

If they want to prove NIST wrong then the better plan than looking at girder walk off would be to look at single column failure progressing to global collapse. That however would mean also jeopardizing the claims they have made in the past. Safe move therefore is to attack girder walk off.
Then they can spout "no fire induced girder walk off therefore multiple explosives".

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
HOWEVER, the assumption that col79 failed first is quite solid.

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Actually I've disagreed with that assertion of failed first many times.

NIST's own report explains why it cannot be true.

Lousy use of language.

Agreed, as being strictly true; but if you change the statement to "the first outward manifestation of the structural failure of WTC 7, the collapse of the East Penthouse, was almost certainly the result of the failure of column 79", then it's well-nigh undeniable, even by Truthers.

Hulsey's statement, at ~18 seconds, that "steel is a very fire-resistant material", doesn't exactly inspire confidence....

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Hulsey's statement, at ~18 seconds, that "steel is a very fire-resistant material", doesn't exactly inspire confidence....

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Does the school know he went nuts on 911 after 14 years? When he comes up with silent explosives did it...

He is the school, as he chairs the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at UAF!

http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx
(ETA: He got his B. S. Civil Engineering in 1965. He thus was probably born in the early 1940s and would be a bit over 70 years old now. Isn't there a retirement age for professors in administrative posts like department chair? Anyway, judgung from his awards, he seems to be more excellent in teaching than research - which is not a bad thing at all!)

Neither Hulsey nor any of his faculty have yet signed Gage's petition. So far they fooled only 2 (two) civil engineers in Alaska to sign.

He got his B. S. Civil Engineering in 1965. He thus was probably born in the early 1940s and would be a bit over 70 years old now. Isn't there a retirement age for professors in administrative posts like department chair? Anyway, judgung from his awards, he seems to be more excellent in teaching than research - which is not a bad thing at all!).

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.